1:05-cv-00255 | W.D. La. | Sep 7, 2010
Case 1:05-cV-00255-DDD-.]DK Document 44 Filed 09/07/10 Page 1 of 6 Page|D #: 378
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Courtesy copies of documents you file should NOT be provided to any
judge. All communications with the court SHALL ONLY be by document filed with the Clerk
of Court. o other briefs or responses (such as supplemental objections, reply briefs
etc.) \,#i~led.
\ ?`\P"
¢C)@©
§§ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
TOMMIE ANDERSON, CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff SECTION “P”
NO. 05-cv-0255
VERSUS
BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., JUDGE DEE D. DRELL
Defendant$ MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAMES D. KIRK
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before this court is a complaint filed, in forma pauperis,
pursuant to Bivens v. SiX Unknown Named Agents of the Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388" date_filed="1971-06-21" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics">403 U.S. 388, 9l S.Ct. 1999 (1971), on
February 2, 2005 and amended on plaintiff May 30, 2008 (Doc. 25)
by plaintiff Tommie Anderson (“Anderson”). The named defendants
are the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), Rohert M Tapia (“Tapia”) (a
“director” of the BOP) and Harley Lappin (“Lappin”)(warden of the
United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana (“USP-Pollock”)),
and the U.S. Department of Justice. Anderson contends that, while
he was confined in the USP-Pollock in 2004, defendants violated his
rights to due process and equal protection of the law. Anderson
alleges that defendants denied him access to the court by refusing
to furnish him with legal research materials in order for him to
Case 1:05-cV-00255-DDD-.]DK Document 44 Filed 09/07/10 Page 2 of 6 Page|D #: 379
determine whether he could file for post-conviction relief (Doc.
25). Anderson further contends he was never advised. of any
administrative procedure to appeal the defendants’ refusal to
provide him with legal research materials (Doc. 25). Anderson
contends he has since been discharged from the custody of the BOP
and is currently serving a term of supervised release (Doc. 25).
For relief, Anderson asks for a jury trial, monetary damages, and
costs.
Anderson’s action was dismissed by the district judge on
September 22, 2005 (Doc. ll). On appeal, on April 17, 2008, the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of dismissal
and remanded Anderson’s case to this court for further proceedings
(Doc. 21).
Service was ordered (Doc. 24) and summons were issued on June
20, 2008 for service by the U.S. Marshal’s Service (Doc. 26). In
an attempt to serve “any warden” of USP-Pollock (see Doc. 29),
Anderson named Warden Federick Menifee on USM-Form 285 (the service
receipt and return) as “one of them l remember” (see Doc. 29). The
summons were returned unexecuted for Robert Tapia (Doc. 28) and
Frederick Menifee (Doc. 29) due to their retirement.l
The U.S. Department of Justice and the BOP were served on July
22, 2008 (Doc. 27). Service was made on the current “warden of
USP-Pollock” on February 27, 2009 (Doc. 35).
1 Menifee was never named as a defendant in this suit.
2
Case 1:05-cV-00255-DDD-.]DK Document 44 Filed 09/07/10 Page 3 of 6 Page|D #: 380
Anderson filed a motion for entry of default (Doc. 38), to
which defendants responded (Doc. 40). Defendants then filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. 39). The parties’ motions
are now before this court for disposition.
Law and Analysis
U.S. Department of Justice, the BOP, and Official Capacitv Suits
Bivens defendants are federal officials brought into federal
court for violating the Federal Constitution. Bivens-type actions
may be brought only against federal agents and not federal
agencies. F.D.I.C. v. MeVer, 510 U.S. 471" date_filed="1994-02-23" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer">510 U.S. 471, 486, 114 S.Ct. 996,
1006, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994); Whitley v. Hunt, 158 F.3d 882" date_filed="1998-10-23" court="5th Cir." case_name="Whitley v. Hunt">158 F.3d 882 885 (5th
Cir. 1998). Under Bivens, a plaintiff may recover damages for any
injuries suffered as a result of federal agents' violations of his
constitutional rights. Channer v. Hall, 112 F.3d 214" date_filed="1997-05-14" court="5th Cir." case_name="Channer v. Hall">112 F.3d 214, 216 (5th Cir.
1997). The purpose of' Bivens is to deter individual federal
officers from committing constitutional violations. Correctional
Serv. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61" date_filed="2001-11-27" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko">534 U.S. 61, 122 S.Ct. 515 (2001).
An inmate may not bring a Bivens action against the United
States, the Bureau of Prisons, or its officers in their official
capacities as such claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign
immunity. Gibson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 121 Fed.Appx. 549,
551 (5th Cir. 2004), citing Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21" date_filed="1991-11-05" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Hafer v. Melo">502 U.S. 21, 25, 112
S.Ct. 358, 361 (1991)(the real party in interest in an official-
capacity suit is the governmental entity and not the names
Case 1:05-cV-00255-DDD-.]DK Document 44 Filed 09/07/10 Page 4 of 6 Page|D #: 381
official); Correctional Serv. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61" date_filed="2001-11-27" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko">534 U.S. 61, 122
S.Ct. 515 (2001). Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss should
be granted in favor of the BOP and the U.S. Department of Justice.
Anderson does not state whether he is suing Tapia and Lappin
in their official and/or individual capacities. To the extent he
may be suing them in their official capacities, defendants’ motion
to dismiss should be granted in favor of Tapia and Lappin in their
official capacities because those claims are also barred by
sovereign immunity.
T_aM
None of the named defendants were the warden of USP-Pollock at
the time the warden was served on February 27, 2009. Defendants
state in their brief that Tapia was warden from December 28, 2003
through January 31, 2005, and was thus the warden when Anderson was
incarcerated in USP-Pollock in 2004. However, Tapia was retired at
the service was effected on the warden in 2009, so Tapia has never
been served. Since a Bivens suit may only be brought against
defendants in their individual capacities and not in their official
capacities, service on the warden in 2009 does not constitute
service on former warden Tapia.
Therefore, Anderson’s complaint against Tapia should be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). See
McGinnis v. Shalala, 2 F.3d 548" date_filed="2004-03-25" court="5th Cir." case_name="McGinnis v. Shalala">2 F.3d 548, 550 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. den.,
510 U.S. 1191" date_filed="1994-03-21" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Industrias Marathon Ltda. v. United States and Industrias Marathon Ltda. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.">510 U.S. 1191, 114 S. Ct. 1293" date_filed="1994-03-21" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Petrochem Insulation, Inc. v. United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada">114 S.Ct. 1293, 127 L.Ed.Zd 647 (1994); Systems
Case 1:05-cV-00255-DDD-.]DK Document 44 Filed 09/07/10 Page 5 of 6 Page|D #: 382
Signs Supplies v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 903 F.2d 1011" date_filed="1990-05-15" court="5th Cir." case_name="Systems Signs Supplies, Jahurett Castrillon v. United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.">903 F.2d 1011, 1013 (5th
Cir. 1990); Kersh v. Derosier, 851 F.2d 1509" date_filed="1988-08-15" court="5th Cir." case_name="George Kersh v. Norman Derozier">851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988).
La in
Defendants state in their brief that Lappin has never been the
warden of USP-Pollock. More to the point, Anderson did not fill
out a summons for service on Lappin and he has never been served.
Therefore, Anderson's complaint against Lappin should be dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
Motion for Default
Since the U.S. Department of Justice, the BOP, and the Tapia
and Lappin in their official capacities are entitled to sovereign
immunity from suit, Anderson’s motion for entry of default against
them should be denied.
Since Tapia and Lappin were never served, Anderson’s motion
for entry of default against them in their individual capacities
should be denied for lack of service.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing discussion, IT IS RECOMMENDED that
defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 39) be GRANTED and Anderson’s
action against the U.S. Department of Justice, the Bureau of
Prisons, and the defendants in their official capacities be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to dismiss
(Doc. 39) be GRANTED and Anderson’s complaint against Tapia and
Case 1:05-cV-00255-DDD-.]DK Document 44 Filed 09/07/10 Page 6 of 6 Page|D #: 383
Lappin be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effect
service.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Anderson's motion for entry of
default be DENIED.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties have fourteen (14) days from
service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written
objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another
party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served
with a copy thereof. A courtesy copy of any objection or response
or request for extension of time shall be furnished to the District
Judge at the time of filing. Timely objections will be considered
by the district judge before he makes a final ruling.
A PARTY’S FAILURE TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED
FINDINGS, CCNCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT
WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ITS SERVICE
SHALL BAR AN AGGRIEVED PARTY, EXCEPT ON GRDUNDS OF PLAIN ERROR,
FROM ATTACKING ON APPEAL THE UNOBJECTED-TO PROPOSED FACTUAL
FINDINGS AND LEGAL CONCLUSIONS ACCEPTED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Alexandria, Louisiana, on this
\ .
JAMES D. K!R
d States Magistrate Judge
day of September, 2010.
UnIte